People v. Glasper

151 A.D.2d 692
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 19, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 692 (People v. Glasper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Glasper, 151 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered April 4, 1983, convicting him of murder in the sécond degree (two counts) and burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the court [693]*693properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s pro se application, in which defense counsel joined, to withdraw his guilty plea (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520, 524-525). The record establishes that the defendant, while represented by competent counsel, with whose services the defendant expressed satisfaction, knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights and pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Significantly, during the plea allocution the defendant denied being threatened or coerced into entering his guilty plea. Moreover, the defendant had given an inculpatory statement to the police which fully implicated him in the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. Thus, the defendant’s decision to plead guilty appeared to be a calculated decision to reduce his sentencing exposure. His claim that his guilty plea was the result of coercion has no factual basis in the record.

We further reject the defendant’s contention that the County Court should have assigned new counsel on his application to withdraw his plea. In view of the fact that the defendant’s plea allocution essentially negates his claim of coercion and no other factual predicate therefor has been advanced, the defendant suffered no discernible prejudice in his counsel’s failure to amplify his pro se contentions (see, People v Brown, 126 AD2d 898, 900-901; People v Kelsch, 96 AD2d 677, 678-679). Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the defense counsel did not adopt an adversary posture against him on the application to withdraw the plea (cf., People v Shadney, 81 AD2d 842). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Torres
68 A.D.3d 1142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Smith
61 A.D.3d 1005 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Ford
44 A.D.3d 1070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Richards
227 A.D.2d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Alfieri
201 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Niaze
193 A.D.2d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Pernell
189 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Rodriguez
181 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Lindsey
179 A.D.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Burgos
177 A.D.2d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Bourdonnay
160 A.D.2d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 A.D.2d 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-glasper-nyappdiv-1989.